The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the victim cannot be deemed to have known of the lawsuit related to the excessive receipt amount at the time of adjustment of the penalty between the defendant and the victim, and the excessive receipt amount is part of the purchase price actually borne by the victim, and the defendant has the nature of unjust enrichment, and thus the status of the custodian under the good faith principle should be recognized in relation to the victim. Thus, the charge of embezzlement of this case is found guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① in the so-called contract title trust agreement concluded between the truster and the trustee who concluded a title trust agreement and the owner who was unaware of the fact that the title trust agreement was concluded, the trustee acquired the ownership of the trust property completely and bears only the obligation to return unjust enrichment upon the invalidation of the title trust agreement to the truster. Such obligation to return unjust enrichment is not only the ordinary obligation owed by the trustee to the truster due to the invalidation of the title trust agreement, and as long as the title trust agreement between the truster and the trustee becomes null and void, the delegation agreement for the purchase of real estate, along with the title trust agreement between the truster and the trustee is also deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2722, Sept. 25, 2001; 2003Do6994, Apr. 27, 2004); and such legal doctrine of title trust under the contract.